Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke: Should PFOs Be Closed in Otherwise Cryptogenic Stroke?

  • Published:
Current Atherosclerosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since initial reports of its association with ischemic stroke appeared in 1988, there has been continued controversy regarding the existence and strength of the association between patent foramen ovale (PFO) and ischemic stroke. Many case-control studies have reported an association between incident cryptogenic ischemic stroke and PFO, yet population-based studies have failed to confirm this association. Studies of the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic stroke with or without PFO have not shown an increased risk of recurrent stroke in patients with PFO. Meanwhile, use of devices to close PFOs and atrial septal defects percutaneously has increased dramatically since their introduction. Completion of the randomized clinical trials of PFO closure currently in progress is vital to determine if the benefits of PFO closure in cryptogenic stroke outweigh its risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of Importance, •• Of Major Importance

  1. Lechat P, Mas JL, Lascault G, et al.: Prevalence of patent foramen ovale in patients with stroke. N Engl J Med 1988, 318:1148–1152.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Webster MW, Chancellor AM, Smith HJ, et al.: Patent foramen ovale in young stroke patients. Lancet 1988, 2:11–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Karamlou T, Diggs BS, Ungerleider RM, et al.: The rush to atrial septal defect closure: is the introduction of percutaneous closure driving utilization? Ann Thorac Surg 2008, 86:1584–1590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Centre for Evidence-based Medicine: Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine - Levels of Evidence (March 2009). Available at http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed March 2010.

  5. Thaler DE, Saver JL: Cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale. Curr Opin Cardiol 2008, 23:537–544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hagen PT, Scholz DG, Edwards WD: Incidence and size of patent foramen ovale during the first 10 decades of life: an autopsy study of 965 normal hearts. Mayo Clin Proc 1984, 59:17–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mugge A, Daniel WG, Angermann C, et al.: Atrial septal aneurysm in adult patients. A multicenter study using transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography. Circulation 1995, 91:2785–2792.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Di Tullio MR, Sacco RL, Sciacca RR, et al.: Patent foramen ovale and the risk of ischemic stroke in a multiethnic population. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 49:797–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Meissner I, Khandheria BK, Heit JA, et al.: Patent foramen ovale: innocent or guilty? Evidence from a prospective population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:440–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Handke M, Harloff A, Bode C, Geibel A: Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: a matter of age? Semin Thromb Hemost 2009, 35:505–514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schneider B, Zienkiewicz T, Jansen V, et al.: Diagnosis of patent foramen ovale by transesophageal echocardiography and correlation with autopsy findings. Am J Cardiol 1996, 77:1202–1209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thanigaraj S, Valika A, Zajarias A, et al.: Comparison of transthoracic versus transesophageal echocardiography for detection of right-to-left atrial shunting using agitated saline contrast. Am J Cardiol 2005, 96:1007–1010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. •• Serena J, Marti-Fabregas J, Santamarina E, et al.: Recurrent stroke and massive right-to-left shunt: results from the prospective Spanish multicenter (CODICIA) study. Stroke 2008, 39:3131–3136. This paper is the most recent of the prospective cohort studies of recurrent stroke in patients with cryptogenic cerebral ischemia. It reviews data from the other three such studies.

  14. Kessel-Schaefer A, Lefkovits M, Zellweger MJ, et al.: Migrating thrombus trapped in a patent foramen ovale. Circulation 2001, 103:1928.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ranoux D, Cohen A, Cabanes L, et al.: Patent foramen ovale: is stroke due to paradoxical embolism? Stroke 1993, 24:31–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cramer SC, Rordorf G, Maki JH, et al.: Increased pelvic vein thrombi in cryptogenic stroke: results of the Paradoxical Emboli from Large Veins in Ischemic Stroke (PELVIS) study. Stroke 2004, 35:46–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Overell JR, Bone I, Lees KR: Interatrial septal abnormalities and stroke: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Neurology 2000, 55:1172–1179.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Poppert H, Morschhaeuser M, Feurer R, et al.: Lack of association between right-to-left shunt and cerebral ischemia after adjustment for gender and age. J Negat Results Biomed 2008, 7:7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. • Handke M, Harloff A, Olschewski M, et al.: Patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke in older patients. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:2262–2268. This is a recent study using case-control methodology, finding association between PFO and cryptogenic stroke in patients greater than 55 years of age, as well as in young patients.

  20. Petty GW, Khandheria BK, Meissner I, et al.: Population-based study of the relationship between patent foramen ovale and cerebrovascular ischemic events. Mayo Clin Proc 2006, 81:602–608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mas JL, Arquizan C, Lamy C, et al.: Recurrent cerebrovascular events associated with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both. N Engl J Med 2001, 345:1740–1746.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Homma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, et al.: Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation 2002, 105:2625–2631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De Castro S, Cartoni D, Fiorelli M, et al.: Morphological and functional characteristics of patent foramen ovale and their embolic implications. Stroke 2000, 31:2407–2413.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bogousslavsky J, Garazi S, Jeanrenaud X, et al.: Stroke recurrence in patients with patent foramen ovale: the Lausanne Study. Lausanne Stroke with Paradoxal Embolism Study Group. Neurology 1996, 46:1301–1305.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lethen H, Flachskampf FA, Schneider R, et al.: Frequency of deep vein thrombosis in patients with patent foramen ovale and ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Am J Cardiol 1997, 80:1066–1069.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stollberger C, Slany J, Schuster I, et al.: The prevalence of deep venous thrombosis in patients with suspected paradoxical embolism. Ann Intern Med 1993, 119:461–465.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Seligsohn U, Lubetsky A: Genetic susceptibility to venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2001, 344:1222–1231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. • Pezzini A, Grassi M, Zotto ED, et al.: Do common prothrombotic mutations influence the risk of cerebral ischaemia in patients with patent foramen ovale? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 2009, 101:813–817. This is a meta-analysis finding prothrombin G20210A mutation, but not FVL mutation, was associated with stroke in patients with PFO compared to patients without PFO and compared to control nonstroke patients.

  29. Wypasek E, Stepien E, Pieculewicz M, et al.: Factor XIII Val34Leu polymorphism and ischaemic stroke in patients with patent foramen ovale. Thromb Haemost 2009, 102:1280–1282.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. • Rajamani K, Chaturvedi S, Jin Z, et al.: Patent foramen ovale, cardiac valve thickening, and antiphospholipid antibodies as risk factors for subsequent vascular events: the PICSS-APASS study. Stroke 2009, 40:2337–2342. This paper is an analysis of the two substudies of WARSS. Patients with PFO did not have an increased risk of recurrent stroke dependent on aPL status.

  31. Meier B: Catheter-based closure of the patent foramen ovale. Circulation 2009, 120:1837–1841.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Krumsdorf U, Ostermayer S, Billinger K, et al.: Incidence and clinical course of thrombus formation on atrial septal defect and patient foramen ovale closure devices in 1,000 consecutive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 43:302–309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wahl A, Krumsdorf U, Meier B, et al.: Transcatheter treatment of atrial septal aneurysm associated with patent foramen ovale for prevention of recurrent paradoxical embolism in high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 45:377–380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. • Wahl A, Meier B: Patent foramen ovale and ventricular septal defect closure. Heart 2009, 95:70–82. This recent review tabulated over 4000 patients across 23 closure studies and revealed successful closure rates between 51% and 100%, with a mean closure rate of 86% and an average complication rate of 4.6%.

  35. Khairy P, O’Donnell CP, Landzberg MJ: Transcatheter closure versus medical therapy of patent foramen ovale and presumed paradoxical thromboemboli: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2003, 139:753–760.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Windecker S, Wahl A, Nedeltchev K, et al.: Comparison of medical treatment with percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in patients with cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 44:750–758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schuchlenz HW, Weihs W, Berghold A, et al.: Secondary prevention after cryptogenic cerebrovascular events in patients with patent foramen ovale. Int J Cardiol 2005, 101:77–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Messe SR, Kasner SE: Is closure recommended for patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke? Patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic stroke: not to close. Circulation 2008, 118:1999–2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cujec B, Mainra R, Johnson DH: Prevention of recurrent cerebral ischemic events in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic strokes or transient ischemic attacks. Can J Cardiol 1999, 15:57–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mas JL, Zuber M: Recurrent cerebrovascular events in patients with patent foramen ovale, atrial septal aneurysm, or both and cryptogenic stroke or transient ischemic attack. French Study Group on Patent Foramen Ovale and Atrial Septal Aneurysm. Am Heart J 1995, 130:1083–1088.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Petty GW, Brown RD Jr, Whisnant JP, et al.: Ischemic stroke subtypes: a population-based study of functional outcome, survival, and recurrence. Stroke 2000, 31:1062–1068.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kolominsky-Rabas PL, Weber M, Gefeller O, et al.: Epidemiology of ischemic stroke subtypes according to TOAST criteria: incidence, recurrence, and long-term survival in ischemic stroke subtypes: a population-based study. Stroke 2001, 32:2735–2740.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. • O’Gara PT, Messe SR, Tuzcu EM, et al.: Percutaneous device closure of patent foramen ovale for secondary stroke prevention: a call for completion of randomized clinical trials: a science advisory from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation 2009, 119:2743–2747. This paper reviews the status of percutaneous PFO closure trials, data regarding association between PFO and cryptogenic stroke, and calls for continued efforts to complete randomized clinical trials of PFO closure.

Download references

Disclosure

Dr. Jin-Moo Lee has received grant support from National Institutes of Health P50 NS055977, P01 NS032636, R01 NS048283, and R01 NS067905, and has been a site principal investigator for the following clinical trials: RESPECT, APCAST, SWISS, and IRIS. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8111, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    David A. Carpenter, Andria L. Ford & Jin-Moo Lee

Authors
  1. David A. Carpenter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andria L. Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jin-Moo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jin-Moo Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carpenter, D.A., Ford, A.L. & Lee, JM. Patent Foramen Ovale and Stroke: Should PFOs Be Closed in Otherwise Cryptogenic Stroke?. Curr Atheroscler Rep 12, 251–258 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-010-0114-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-010-0114-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation